On Saturday, 3 February 2024 17:32:17 GMT Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 6:39 PM Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2024-01-31, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > In any case, these COW filesystems, much like git, store data in a > > > way that makes it very efficient to diff two snapshots and back up > > > only the data that has changed. [...] > > > > In order to take advantage of this, I assume that the backup > > destination and source both have to be ZFS? > > So, the data needs to be RESTORED to ZFS for this to work. However, > the zfs send command serializes the data and so you can just store it > in files. Those files can only be read back into zfs. > > It is probably a bit more typical to just pipe the send command into > zfs receive (often over ssh) so that you're just directly mirroring > the filesystem, and not storing the intermediate data. > > > Do backup source and > > destination need to be in the same filesystem? Or volume? Or Pool? > > No on all of these, but they can be. > > > If you'll forgive the analogy, we'll say the the functionality of > > rsync (as used by rsnapshot) is built-in to ZFS. Is there an > > application that does with ZFS snapshots what the rsnapshot > > application itself does with rsync? > > There are a few wrappers around zfs send. I'm using > sys-fs/zfs-auto-snapshot and what looks like a much older version of: > https://github.com/psy0rz/zfs_autobackup > > > I googled for ZFS backup applications, but didn't find anything that > > seemed to be widespread and "supported" the way that rsnapshot is. > > They're less popular since many just DIY them, but honestly I think > the wrapper is a nicer solution. It will rotate backups, make sure > that snapshots aren't needed before deleting them, and so on. In > order to do an incremental backup the source/destination systems need > to have matching snapshots to base them on, so that is important if > backups are sporadic. If you're just saving all the send streams then > knowing which ones are obsolete is also important, unless you want to > have points in time.
This article offers some comparison tests between ZFS, Btrfs and mdadm+dm- integrity. Although the setup and scenarios are not directly comparable with the OP's use case they provide some insight on more typical implementations where these fs excel. https://unixsheikh.com/articles/battle-testing-zfs-btrfs-and-mdadm-dm.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
